Whether the Supreme Court should require a judicial test for determining when color-of-law actors have used Unconstitutional Avoidance to violate a citizen's constitutional rights

IL CONSTITUTIONAL RIPENESS Whether the Supreme Court, in this age of equality, should consider gender-based servitude ripe for correction. II. UNCONSTITUTIONAL AVOIDANCE Whether a court of first instance’s failure to assemble a jury for Thirteenth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. §1584 Sale into involuntary servitude protection, once a demand for trial by jury is made, establishes Unconstitutional Avoidance. Ill. ADOPTING A JUDICIAL TEST Whether the Supreme Court should require the application of a judicial test for determining when color-of-law actors have used Unconstitutional Avoidance to violate a citizen’s constitutional rights. Iv. THE RIGHT TO A GRAND JURY Whether victims have the right to demand a grand jury when color-of-law actors are found to have used Unconstitutional Avoidance to violate the protection of 18 U.S.C. §1584 Sale into involuntary servitude “in any way”. ii LIST OF ALL PARTIES TO PROCEEDING ALAN HEADMAN PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS (“FBI”), UNITED STATES, JUDGE JERALD DEAN FOWLER II, JUDGE TERESA WELCH lll RELATED FEDERAL DISTRICT AND APPEAL COURT PROCEEDINGS Headman v Federal Bureau of Investigations, et al. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Case 6:24-cv-33 These proceedings concerned: (1) The resolution of a & U.S.C. Section 706 Scope of review dispute between the FBI and the Petitioner over whether the petitioner was entitled to a “hard look” and/or “deep dive” review of the related agency decision rather than an arbitrary and capricious dismissal of his claim of entitlement for protection of his right to trial by jury and the violation of 18 U.S.C. §1584 Sale into involuntary servitude that resulted from the deprivation of this right; and (2) The resolution of the underlying dispute between the respondents Welch and Fowler regarding the denial of his Seventh Amendment constitutional right to trial by jury and the violation of 18 U.S.C. §1584 Sale into involuntary servitude that resulted from the deprivation of this right. The District Court dismissed the case using Unconstitutional Avoidance in denying a “hard look” and the presentation of all facts to the demanded jury violating super-precedent Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Ine. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971). The dismissal also formalized the use of Unconstitutional Avoidance tactics favoring the judicial defendants. iv Headman v Federal Bureau of Investigations, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Case 25-40151 This appeal sought: (1) ~=Correction of the district court’s denial of due process for the completion of discovery; and (2) Correction of the district court’s failure to uphold the Petitioner’s right to trial by jury; and (3) Correction of the district court’s failure to respect supreme court precedent requiring a “hard look” examination of facts; and : (4) The Appeal Court to take or require to be taken through remand the Overton Park “hard look” examination the District Court failed to conduct. The Appeal Court further failed to correct the Overton Park precedent errors but instead engaged in further Unconstitutional Avoidance tactics by claiming the Petitioner’s seeking of his constitutional right to trial by jury and/or right to be free from involuntary servitude was frivolous. The use of these tactics and further failure to preserve the right to trial by jury was in direct disregard of the rulings set forth in 2024 in SEC v Jarkesy the protection of such Jarkesy precedent having been specifically requested. In addition to assigning the “frivolous” label, the Appeal Court further chose to hide their denial of constitutional rights by issuing unpublished orders.